Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic baby products


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Improvement and de-blathering strongly recommended.  Sandstein  17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Organic baby products

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails notability, content fork with Organic food and possibly Organic cotton, no effort taken by editors to prove notability, general blabla state of article. Truetom (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. I should make WP:BLAHBLAH for articles that are in "blah blah" state. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. There is an article here, this just ain't it. Might need some working.  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep merge with Organic food cf38  talk  21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep appears to be well-written and sourced. With a new infant, I'm finding a lot of chatter in the "baby world" about organic baby products.  Article is warranted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * weak but lead and melamine free keep This message brought to you by the "Organic Baby Products Consortium". Remember, you can find our products from a variety of sources.  Don't forget to ask about organic diapers and bedding! (Thought I would make my reasons to keep as weak as the article.  Notable, just written with a bias)  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * can i just verify, if you vote for keep, a merger is not an option, or is this not the place to ask this?Truetom (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. It's a discussion.  Please read the Guide to deletion for more information. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the concensus here doesn't question the notability of the topic, however, the current article appears to be written in a very "pro organic" tone. This isn't a reason to delete the article (IMO), but it means the article needs lots of work from someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest in the subject matter. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * in my opinion the problem of the article is not that it is pro organic but that it can be summed up by advantages of obp is that they are organic, disadvantages is that they are more expensive and then it lists all the organic baby products that you could possible buy, all references refer to organic products in general, there are no references about obp in particular.Truetom (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.